great site! you seem to be a true fan. i didnt check all of it yet but have you put up anything regarding how freddie pronounced the words? because i think he did it better than anyone, for example in the show must go on when other people say "my soul is painted" freddie says it like "my soul is paintiiid" things like that makes it sound alot better.

freddie was and still is the god of all singers by far and i dont think paul has the same range, if he had he would have done the " i face it with a grin..." part in show must go on for example but he cant. He is nowhere freddie when it comes to voice or singing.

wait...what's the difference between painted and paintiid? (a part that the first is correct)

its a difference when he sings it paintiiid than painted, sounds better. He does this on alot of other words, sings them differently, his english just sounds so much better than anyone else when he sings.

Hmmm you could also talk about his voice live and differences, then if you want you could mention about maybe different tours and the way his voice changed through the live era?

That'd be something! I'd like you to discuss to what extent the mixing and stuff may have actually artificially embelished Freddie's voice and stretched his actual vocal range? A lot of what goes on in the recordings seems very artificially improved or embelished. There's such a huge gap between Queen's live and studio performances. Why couldn't Queen ever play Under Pressure decently live? Was Freddie actually capable, not only sporadically, but on a regular basis, of reaching the beautiful notes he reached in the studio recordings?

Reviews by other singers and musicians about him would be a treat too. Brian actually says that Paul Rogers vocal range is the same as Freddie's. I for one like PR singing better than late Freddie's.

It'd put to rest the "freddie is god" bullshit.

Thanks man you're great!

I can't approach this from the perspective of an actual singer. I'm just a guitar player, but from a year or so of trying to learn how to sing, I can only say ; some people can replicate vocal performances in any kind of situation, and others can't. Also consider that some things just don't work live. Freddie's attempt of "The Immigrant Song"... I mean, that particular kind of falsetto sounded good in "March of the Black Queen" but it did not work live. He has a different voice to those guys who can do high screams (Ted Neeley, Ian Gillan, Robert Plant, even our own Roger Taylor).

Freddie's falsetto was a different kind of singing to what you hear on "Immigrant Song" - it sounds fantastic in the studio, very feminine and unique. But live - it don't work.

Again - I'm no singer, but I've been in the situation where you are faced with a high note and you don't know how to tackle it. Consider that Freddie didn't always do high notes in the same manner. In some songs he'd absolutely belt them out, in other songs he'd throttle back and it'd sound almost effortless. In a live situation it's not always that easy to use different techniques. I'm hoping a proper singer will perhaps bail me out here with the right terminology! :)

It's also a psychological thing, sometimes. In a crowded pub where no one is listening, I can do notes that I can *never* do, on stage or in a studio. I just open my mouth and a pretty little C (ala 'You're My Best Friend') will just float out and make people look around and wonder where it's coming from. I can't do that anywhere else :/ Don't ask me why.

Human voices are incredibly unique, Freddie being.... well. Fuck, you don't get much more unique than him, I think. He still had his weaknesses, I guess consistency in a live situation would be a big one. He was by no means bad on stage. He just had to change his way of doing things. The delivery of the songs became different, and if you ask me that's one of the kickass things about live music anyway. Music literally becomes a living thing when you play it, and that sounds awfully pretentious but it's true. It's vastly different from putting on a CD.

I really don't think there was much studio trickery to Freddie's sound. Another One Bites the Dust was admittedly pitched up, but that's one of few examples that I know of, and there's plenty of recorded evidence of him making those notes in songs that were not pitch-altered.

I'm sure Sebastian has pointed this out, but in a live situation he really was more of a showman than anything. His performances were big and powerful and if that meant he had to sacrifice some high notes... no biggy. There's always the albums.

I would buy the book!!!! I find the Queen literature which is about the MUSIC far more interesting than any of the other literature in print. For example, I have read the George Purvis book, cover to cover, and, keep referring back to it: it is by far my favorite among all my Queen biographical material.

AndresGuazzelli wrote:

Hey guys! Thanks for the comments, everything works.

Now, if there was a 120-pages book about Freddie's voice, would you buy it? :)

(There's a difference between reading a website, and actually buying the book, so it's good to know if there's any real MARKET out there)

Hmmm you could also talk about his voice live and differences, then if you want you could mention about maybe different tours and the way his voice changed through the live era?

That'd be something! I'd like you to discuss to what extent the mixing and stuff may have actually artificially embelished Freddie's voice and stretched his actual vocal range? A lot of what goes on in the recordings seems very artificially improved or embelished. There's such a huge gap between Queen's live and studio performances. Why couldn't Queen ever play Under Pressure decently live? Was Freddie actually capable, not only sporadically, but on a regular basis, of reaching the beautiful notes he reached in the studio recordings?

Reviews by other singers and musicians about him would be a treat too. Brian actually says that Paul Rogers vocal range is the same as Freddie's. I for one like PR singing better than late Freddie's.